I'm confused. Did Martyn say that a "Powered By" needs to be on the main page of the console?
Justin On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Michael André Pearce < [email protected]> wrote: > As Dan says there is a reference to being powered by in the about page. > > I was under the impression it shouldn't be up front an centre, but in the > about area would suffice. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned apart > from a > >> powered by. > >> * I don't see any powered by on the main screens. We can open a JIRA > to > >> track it once this is merged. > > > > It shouldn’t be on the main screen…. There is information on the “About” > page (at least last time I looked at it) which is enough. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > >> > >> This should be able to expand over time > >> * Met. It's extendable. > >> > >> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met > >> * I've been through each source, license and notice file. Both in this > >> project and the original project this is imported from. The original > >> project was not properly licensed, which caused some concern. However, > >> I've sent a PR which was merged. I think we're all good here. > >> > >> In summary, I think it's a great first start and something users can use > >> pretty much straight away. > >> > >> +1 from me. Great work Michael. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I just reviewed the new console via the PR. I really like it. Nice > work! > >>> > >>> > >>> Justin > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Clebert Suconic < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> That's fair guys.. I was just tempted to do it.. but won't to it. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Michael André Pearce > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> I would agree, we should stick to the plan. > >>>>> > >>>>> Merging straight after release and releasing again won't delay in > >>>> reality the time people can use it. Apart from a few days at most. > >>>>> > >>>>> But will address/de risks any concerns. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2017, at 17:23, Timothy Bish <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 07/13/2017 12:10 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote: > >>>>>>> I am tempted to merge it now actually.... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyone opposed to this? it would be cool to have a console on this > >>>>>>> next release.. if it's all good. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please stick to the original plan. I guessing there's other folks > >>> like > >>>> myself who haven't had time to even look at this new console yet. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Michael André Pearce > >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi All, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would like to start a fresh discussion to keep things cleaner, > and > >>>> to provide more of a notification/update. (also to better name the > >>> subject) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The requirement for such a tool comes from many end users > (including > >>>> myself) which keep requesting such a feature of a web management > console > >>> (a > >>>> small selection of a much larger list i can supply many more), and so > >>>> becomes more and more pressing to resolve. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-monitor- > >>>> artemis-td4727071.html <http://activemq.2283324.n4. > >>>> nabble.com/How-to-monitor-artemis-td4727071.html> > >>>>>>>> https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/ > >>>> 39052/administration-console-for-artemis-jms-broker < > >>> https://softwarerecs. > >>>> stackexchange.com/questions/39052/administration-console- > >>>> for-artemis-jms-broker> > >>>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37162532/how-to- > >>>> monitor-apache-artemis <https://stackoverflow.com/ > >>>> questions/37162532/how-to-monitor-apache-artemis> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Based off the discussion here: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing- > >>>> the-Web-Console-td4717136i40.html#a4728199 < > http://activemq.2283324.n4. > >>>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Removing-the-Web-Console-td4717136i40. > html#a4728199> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We have some key requirements as noted were (not exhaustive but a > >>>> small summary of noted in the above thread): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Must be ActiveMQ Branded > >>>>>>>> No third party / propriety other products should be mentioned > apart > >>>> from a powered by. > >>>>>>>> Help and about pages should be ActiveMQ Artemis focussed > >>>>>>>> Provide functionality to manage the broker > >>>>>>>> This should be able to expand over time > >>>>>>>> License/Notice files and any legal requirements are updated/met > >>>>>>>> The war size should be kept to a minimum > >>>>>>>> Login/Security should be integrated to the broker roles/users > >>>>>>>> Plugins/customisation specific to AcitveMQ Artemis to reside in > >>>> ActiveMQ Artemis project. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Also we had some good early feedback in the community on the > missing > >>>> bits in our early PR, of bits that needed/must be addressed. (thanks > to > >>>> Dan, Clebert, Martyn). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We believe we have a viable “agreeable" solution to provide a web > >>>> console admin for Apache ActiveMQ Artemis. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As such we don’t see any reason to hold off and would like to > bring > >>>> your attention (again) to the PR please make any standard review > comments > >>>> there. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385 < > >>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1385> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Also there has been a small discussion on how to release this, so > >>>> that we can start to get end user feedback, as users tend to want a > built > >>>> usable distribution, like wise there is concern of bundling this into > the > >>>> next release. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We propose: > >>>>>>>> We will release the upcoming next version of Apache ActiveMQ > >>> Artemis, > >>>> WITHOUT the new web console. This is due to occur in the coming week. > >>>>>>>> We will then subsequently look to merge and release another > version > >>>> of Apache ActiveMQ Artemis WITH the console, so it is in a clean > release > >>>> with only the addition of the web console. This should occur almost > >>>> immediately after. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I should thank Clebert and Martyn in offering to run the extra > >>>> release this would require, but de-risk some community concerns. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This solution is based off a hawtio framework, i would like to > >>>> iterate i am not a RedHat employee, nor anything to do with Hawtio > >>> project. > >>>> I work for a company that uses the project like other end users, and > >>> simply > >>>> see it as a framework to enable us in activemq to deliver a usable web > >>>> management console for artemis with as little cost, effort and > >>> maintenance > >>>> as possible, to provide an immediate need in the user community. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Many thanks > >>>>>>>> Mike > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Tim Bish > >>>>>> twitter: @tabish121 > >>>>>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Clebert Suconic > >>>> > >>> > > > > -- > > Daniel Kulp > > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > >
